SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J
Partap – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-734-2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H.S. Sahu
For the Respondents: Paras Talwar

Sentencing should prioritize a reformative approach, balancing retribution and deterrence, by considering the offender's background, conduct, and the passage of time since the offense, rather than adopting a purely punitive stance, especially when the accused has already undergone substantial custody and demonstrated potential for societal reintegration.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, 34 - Criminal Revision - Sentencing - Mitigation - Where accused has undergone significant portion of sentence and long period has elapsed since incident, reformative approach in sentencing is preferred over strictly punitive measures to facilitate reintegration into society. (Paras 16-20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC for an incident occurring in 2011. The Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. During the revision petition, the petitioner abandoned the challenge to the conviction and requested a reduction in the sentence, citing 15 years of litigation, significant actual custody served, and pending acquittal in other cases.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that sentencing must harmonize retribution with reformation. Considering the delay of 15 years, the petitioner's family circumstances, and the fact that he has already served over nine months of the sentence, the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone.

Issues: Whether a reduction in the sentence is warranted based on the mitigating circumstances despite the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Ratio Decidendi: Sentencing is a refined judicial function that should adapt to social contexts, emphasizing reformation over retribution for offenders who demonstrate potential for reintegration.

Result: Petition partly allowed; sentence reduced to period already undergone.

The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tohana, District Fatehabad, in a criminal case bearing No.277 of 2013, arising out of FIR bearing No.42 dated 05.02.2011, under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad, whereby the revisionist-petitioner had been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Offence under Section Sentence
325 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

A further challenge is also made to the judgment dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, in criminal appeal bearing CIS No.CRA-284 (Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2015) dated 17.12.2015, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2011 Suraj son of Dharampal, resident of Sunder Nagar, Tohana, made a statement before the police alleging therein that on 10.01.2011 at about 8:00/8:30 P.M., he along with Arun was closing the shop of his brother Somi @ Som Nath situated at Damkora Road, Tohana. As per the complainant, at that time a pickup vehicle arrived from the side of village Damkora, from which three persons alighted, armed with “Binda of kassi.” It was alleged that the said persons launched an assault upon the complainant. Upon seeing the assailants, the complainant attempted to flee while raising alarm; however, one of the assailants inflicted a binda blow from the backside on his leg, as a result whereof he fell to the ground. It was further alleged that thereafter 3–4 persons started assaulting Arun and also attacked one Pinna, who was present at the spot. However, Pinna managed to escape from the place of occurrence and consequently sustained comparatively lesser injuries. The complainant, however, sustained injuries on his left leg, left arm, left shoulder and head. The prosecution further alleges that after inflicting injuries, the assailants fled from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant and Arun were taken to the hospital by Somi @ Som Nath and Pinna for medical treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the present FIR was registered.

During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Upon completion of investigation, the final report/challan came to be presented before the competent Court.

On presentation of the challan, copies thereof were supplied to the petitioner free of costs as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

On perusal of the material collected during investigation, a prima-facie case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, charge was framed vide order dated 2.5.2012, to which petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In a bid to prove its case against the petitioner, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:

PW1 : HC Suresh Kumar

PW2 : Arun (injured)

PW3 : E/ASI Baljeet Singh

PW4 : H.S. Sagoo

Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him, pleaded innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner further opted to lead evidence in defence. However, in defence evidence, he merely tendered into evidence a copy of a judgment exhibited as Ex.DW1/A and thereafter closed his defence evidence.

The parties were heard by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top